What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The main thrust of the Council of Nicea was to reject and stamp out Christian-flavored Gnosticism, in particular Manichaeism.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Remember, Christianity falls apart if
(a) Christ didn't rise from the dead, and
(b) Didn't ascend into heaven.

Wasn't Alexander the Great born BEFORE Christ?
He rose from the dead to accomplish one last thing.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The main thrust of the Council of Nicea was to reject and stamp out Christian-flavored Gnosticism, in particular Manichaeism.

Nicea was about Arianism. Arianism is (making a very long and interesting story short) the idea of God and Jesus being separate entities -- that, for instance, prior to the Annunciation (when God gives His divine load to Mary), Jesus does not exist. The Powers That Be, at Nicea, made the doctrine of hypostasis mandatory: God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one being. They branded Arianism as tritheistic heresy and made every Catholic school kid's life hell forever.

Manicheanism is the doctrine that there are rival supernatural essences of good and evil, sometimes in the same bipolar God, sometimes in a pairing of a good God (typically the mind) and a bad God (the body). The Church nixed that and said there is no essence of evil, it is just distance from God. So, God is heat. There is no cold, only absence of heat. But Christianity still has leftover bits of it like the Devil and their creepy sexual neuroticism. It's really all just a bad batch of brown Neo-Platonic acid.

Get me, maw, I'm a theology scholar!

That period is fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Remember, Christianity falls apart if
(a) Christ didn't rise from the dead, and
(b) Didn't ascend into heaven.

Wasn't Alexander the Great born BEFORE Christ?

There were various "versions" of what Christianity meant and the nature of Christ in those early days. The Council of Nicea settled those issues and gave us the Nicene Creed, which is a pretty good definition of what it means to be Catholic/Christian.

The big issue for Holy Mother Church was the embracement of temporal power. Uh uh. While it may seem nice to live like a prince, that ain't what Christ intended. You're supposed to be shepherds, not lords. The occasional hob nob with the common folk don't make you a shepherd, not with your flocks be devastated by the wolves, some of which are in sheep's clothing, or worse, shepherds.

Also, you don't accept the Queen's shilling. I don't care if the State is giving away millions and a share of that is mighty tasty. Once you start sucking on the government teat, you're tied to that government and you will compromise yourself to keep the $$ coming.

Now that I’ve stopped ranting :), I've come to believe that Catholicism is a series of inconvenient truths. If you follow Her teachings, you're not going to be popular. The tree may bend, but it will never submit to the wind. Submitting will cause the tree to uproot and die.

We now return you to your local programming.
Oops meant Constantine. Had a brain cramp.

The main thrust of the Council of Nicea was to reject and stamp out Christian-flavored Gnosticism, in particular Manichaeism.
Until Nicea from what I remember there was an argument re whether the most important thing was either that Christ rose as the most important part or what he did when he was alive.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Actually Kep is right, they "settled" the debate about the divinity of Christ by affirming it. Thus, the Nicene Creed. Trinitarianism was not formalized until a few decades later. They apparently also issued the first set of canon laws, one of which was the prohibition of self-castration (That was a thing?! :eek:).

Biblical canon took a few hundred years to fully shake out. So the apocrypha, esp. books that referenced reincarnation, were not specifically rejected at Nicea, but over time. The early church also did a good job of destroying a lot of the rejected texts, so it seems no one is quite sure exactly which books were rejected.
 
If you're talking about marriage, even evolutionary psychologists are only beginning to understand the critical importance of a monogamous commitment in raising healthy kids. (see Peterson, Jordan B. in particular) The idea that monogamy is a modern aberration has been ended.
If you're talking about Catholicism you're exactly right.
If you're talking about faith... I can't help you.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Actually Kep is right, they "settled" the debate about the divinity of Christ by affirming it. Thus, the Nicene Creed. Trinitarianism was not formalized until a few decades later. They apparently also issued the first set of canon laws, one of which was the prohibition of self-castration (That was a thing?! :eek:).

Biblical canon took a few hundred years to fully shake out. So the apocrypha, esp. books that referenced reincarnation, were not specifically rejected at Nicea, but over time. The early church also did a good job of destroying a lot of the rejected texts, so it seems no one is quite sure exactly which books were rejected.

Typically we only know about the books they destroyed because they quoted them in the proceedings where they found them heretical.

The Early Church Fathers were, for the most part, tremendous sh-tbags. In addition to the galloping misogyny and the unrestrained, pinwheel-eyed totalitarianism, they were also deciding doctrine based on the same cut-rate self-interest that motivates university politics or who gets the corner office: the early ecumenical councils are dick-measuring contests (when consensual) or drive-by ambushes (when not) between synods in Antioch, Alexandria, Damascus, Rome and a bunch of other hotbeds of competing fanatics all slicing up the faithful and playing musical chairs to see who gets the influence (and the loot, or the Heavenly brownie points, or the girls which means given their predilections young boys). Given what happened to the loser, it was a literal case of get rich or die tryin.'

The formation of organized Christianity between about 200 and 500 is in effect Al Qaeda, ISIS, QJBR, Hezbollah, and a few hundred other splitter nutbar groups, gradually shaking out their new world theocratic order, with the secular authorities playing them off against each other for political advantage. It's even happening in the same places. Those people never learn.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

If you're talking about marriage, even evolutionary psychologists are only beginning to understand the critical importance of a monogamous commitment in raising healthy kids. (see Peterson, Jordan B. in particular) The idea that monogamy is a modern aberration has been ended.
If you're talking about Catholicism you're exactly right.
If you're talking about faith... I can't help you.
Looked him up. Skimmed things. Not particularly impressed with someone who bases things of Freud when defining how women are in society.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Looked him up. Skimmed things. Not particularly impressed with someone who bases things of Freud when defining how women are in society.

I've only heard a clear-eyed criticism of Freud from him, but rather than skim I've gone into a deep dive of the biblical lecture series on his podcast, without any preconceptions. It's been completely captivating, he has a knack for explaining the importance of religious thought (not religion in the way everyone in this thread speaks of it) from an evolutionary perspective. In one of the Abraham segments I heard something about how the easiest Marxist answer to religion is that it's an opiate for the masses, Freud went a step up with the father-figure psychology, and the truth is that it's a higher form of truth than what the physical world and the sciences can ever provide.
One thing is (and I don't know what part you read or heard) you should hear it from him, because he has a lot of insane enemies publishing things.
But he does take a strong stance on the necessary biological differences between men and women, which are the entertaining bits on his pod. There was the famous quote from some Canadian scientist that "in 40 years of study we have not been able to discover a single biological difference between men and women" which he had an awful lot of fun with. (there was legislation in Canada based in part on the acceptance of that statement :eek:)
His whole wiki page is a pretty good read, if you want to go down a bottomless rabbit hole of internets.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Pretty sure nobody* takes Freud seriously anymore. Much like nobody takes Marx' LTV seriously anymore, not even insane socialists like me.

* "Nobody" here meaning people who matter -- tier 1 leading original researchers and theorists. As ID shows, you can always find some as-shole on a campus somewhere who believes anything.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Pretty sure nobody* takes Freud seriously anymore. Much like nobody takes Marx' LTV seriously anymore, not even insane socialists like me.

* "Nobody" here meaning people who matter -- tier 1 leading original researchers and theorists. As ID shows, you can always find some as-shole on a campus somewhere who believes anything.
A problem I see in 2017 in scholarship, politics, society, everything down to weather forecasting is when people think you have to be "all or nothing" on every possible topic. Freud did a lot of important work before going off the rails with the incest fetish and whatnot. You can't throw it all out.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

A problem I see in 2017 in scholarship, politics, society, everything down to weather forecasting is when people think you have to be "all or nothing" on every possible topic. Freud did a lot of important work before going off the rails with the incest fetish and whatnot. You can't throw it all out.

Fair point.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

A problem I see in 2017 in scholarship, politics, society, everything down to weather forecasting is when people think you have to be "all or nothing" on every possible topic. Freud did a lot of important work before going off the rails with the incest fetish and whatnot. You can't throw it all out.
True. I fully believe that women and men are different. You can do PET scans in blind studies and see the difference. (Transgendered people will have brains like the gender they identify with). I looked at the Wiki page and was underwhelmed. COuld be I have a hair across my a55 about a few of the things he said regarding women that I wasn't impressed with. Seems a bit patriarchal.

The whole monogomy thing I think is based on cultural beliefs as much as biology. There are many cultures where it isn't necessary and the culture works fine. In our culture- schizo as it is regarding sex, gender roles, and just about everything else, pluralism sends people into a frenzy. (not a pluralist myself)
 
COuld be I have a hair across my a55 about a few of the things he said regarding women that I wasn't impressed with. Seems a bit patriarchal.

The whole monogomy thing I think is based on cultural beliefs as much as biology. There are many cultures where it isn't necessary and the culture works fine. In our culture- schizo as it is regarding sex, gender roles, and just about everything else, pluralism sends people into a frenzy. (not a pluralist myself)
1.) I can understand- he's at his most arrogant when claiming that patriarchal structures are built into reality, and we'd best deal with it: he's not talking about domineering women, but it comes across as man-splaining to our p.c. Sensibilities.
2) his argument for monogamy is based on evolution and is quite convincing - not politics or sociology. The social and religious arguments, again, are after effects of grappling with a preordained reality.
 
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

1.) I can understand- he's at his most arrogant when claiming that patriarchal structures are built into reality, and we'd best deal with it: he's not talking about domineering women, but it comes across as man-splaining to our p.c. Sensibilities.
2) his argument for monogamy is based on evolution and is quite convincing - not politics or sociology. The social and religious arguments, again, are after effects of grappling with a preordained reality.

Then how does one explain those cultures where plural relationships work well? In our culture plurality is not going to work. The real reason there is monogamy was men wanted to know the offspring were theirs. There is a whole sociology thing (I have no idea where, I think I learned it at University) about how there was less monogamy before the men figured out how babies came about and wanted their partner to have their genetic offspring
 
Then how does one explain those cultures where plural relationships work well? In our culture plurality is not going to work. The real reason there is monogamy was men wanted to know the offspring were theirs. There is a whole sociology thing (I have no idea where, I think I learned it at University) about how there was less monogamy before the men figured out how babies came about and wanted their partner to have their genetic offspring
I don't personally have any facts available on this stuff, but from what I can recall of Peterson:
The "less monogamy before" is a myth, and self-consciousness in humans developed in tandem with a large brain, big infant skull, long-term developmental dependency, and two active parents. All mutually dependent. The "cultures where plurality works well" were basically dismissed as being rare exceptions to the norm. As to men wanting to pass on their awesomeness, I think he said women actually control selection more than men do, and they select for competence as providers. Men would bang everyone in sight if they could, regardless of genetic heritage.
Edit: I'm vaguely remember some stuff about, women don't go into heat only occasionally like other animals, so they can ensnare men with their availability throughout that long term of dependency blah blah... sorry, I listen to this stuff while trying to work so I miss a lot.
But I recommend the whole lecture series. Start with the "advice to millennials" one which started the whole "clean yer dam room!" Meme.
Edit: the pod episode is called "How to change the world properly", I found it inspiring and it actually had a positive effect on my personal social interactions... how rare is that for a single lecture!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top